Practical Guige to Free Energy Devices

Normal working transformers have ampere-turns which are well below this critical point. The additional EMF
induced in the coils by the magnetisation of the iron offsets the natural inductive impedance of the coils. This is
why transformers have such a high degree of efficiency. If any material other than iron or special steel were used
for the core, the efficiency would drop significantly. Hubbard used part of the output power to provide the input
power, and so he only needed to provide input power for less than a second to get the device running. The power
supply might well be of this nature:
Here, instead of letting the high frequency rectified sine wave (or ramp generator signal) reach zero volts, and
additional DC current supply is maintained, and while the signal generator pulses add to the overall voltage
applied to the device, the voltage is never allowed to reach zero.
There is possibly another factor which could contribute to the success of the Hubbard device. At that time, the
only insulated wire available had thick and heavy insulation. This means that adjacent turns of wire in the coil
were separated by a distance equal to twice the thickness of the insulation. Consequently, the gap resulted in a
cancellation of magnetic effects produced by electrons flowing in the wire. Since inertia is dependent on the
ability to generate a magnetic field, the inertial properties of the electrons would be almost nullified.
There is an optimum distance between the wires which would produce the maximum effect. It seems likely that
the thick insulation on Hubbard’s wire produced this optimum distance. Most of the resultant magnetic field was
that which encircled both wires and that would be the weaker part of the field. This means that a relatively low
EMF could accelerate a larger number of electrons to a high velocity during a very short period of time. As the
electrons leave the coil, inertia returns. This would result in a backup of a high concentration of electrons in the
coil. Since electrostatic repulsion is not affected, electrons would be ejected from the coil at a high velocity
despite their increased inertia. This would produce an output of both high voltage and high amperage.
Joseph Cater’s Version of the Hubbard Generator.
Although containing conflicting information, there is what appears to be an implementation of the Hubbard coil
system, or perhaps a very closely related device from Joseph H. Cater. As usual, information on it is limited and
not particularly clear, so the following is just my attempt to piece together some information from different sources.
Much of this information comes from a document which has Geoff Egel’s name on it and although it seems likely
that Geoff is quoting some other source, my thanks goes to him for sharing what we have here. The diagrams
give the names of various minor websites none of which exist any longer and so these have been removed as
they have no useful purpose any longer. Here is an original diagram from this information:
5 - 88